Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8242695" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think this assumption is part of why there is so much disagreement. From our point of view we are not seeing higher level discussion. We are seeing a particular lens be appleid to games and it is a lens we don't especially agree with. Now there is nothing wrong with having a lens if it works for you. Where it is becoming a problem is assertions like:"The fact that your average gamer only understands the games they play enough to play them"...simply because they don't analyze games using your framework. I've been playing with and posting among your average gamers for a long time. They are mostly very intelligent, very astute at observing things about rules, systems, etc (I mean I've been on the receiving end of such astuteness in debates around 3rd edition, around game balance, etc). I think the problem isn't that most gamers don't understand the games they play (my experience is most gamers do understand and they have a very clear idea of what they like as well), it is that they don't play games according to your model. And I think the reason is, the model only works for highly focused styles of play (which most gamers aren't interested in). Heck, most gamers aren't interested in living world sandbox either. I don't see that as a reflection of them failing to grasp high concepts or being worse GMs. I can totally understand its lack of appeal to the mainstream. Now what I get out of such games definitely hits the right buttons for me in a better way, and feels like a higher level of play to me, but it only feels that way because it appeals to my particular set of tastes and frustrations with other styles of play.Not saying your analysis isn't useful. There are probably gamers for whom it is helpful. I don't think framing it as you being above regular gamers is helpful though in bringing that message to people</blockquote>

Verification